Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges applicant’s remarks filed 05/07/2026. Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, without “configured to” or “programmed to” language between the memory/abnormality determination section and the claimed operations, the limitations “memorizing plural determination criteria data for use in determining presence/absence of an abnormality of the sample dispensing mechanism for each type of the sample containers, wherein the determination criteria data include a pressure in the sample dispensing nozzle before the sample dispensing nozzle contacts a bottom of a respective sample container for each type of the sample containers” and “determining, based on detection results of the pressure sensor when dispensing the samples by the sample dispensing mechanism and the determination criteria data corresponding to the type of the sample containers which is discriminated in the sample container type discrimination section, whether or not an abnormality takes place in dispensing the samples” have been given their broadest reasonable interpretation and thus interpreted as an intended use of the memory/abnormality determination section.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (see MPEP 2111). The current claim limitations do not require the memory/abnormality determination section (i.e., components of an electronic controller) to actually operate in accordance with the recited functions. The prior art controller need only be capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114(IV)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Patent Application Publication No. WO2019/188599 to Sarwar et al. (using U.S. Patent No. 11,719,714 as an English equivalence) in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2012037236A to Kojima.
Sarwar et al. teaches an automatic analyzer that includes a probe 16 for aspirating samples from sample containers 10 into reaction containers and teaches a pressure sensor 26 that monitors for normal or abnormal pressure in the probe. (column 7, lines 8-15)
Sarwar et al. teaches different sized sample container that, as shown in Fig. 10, closely resemble applicant’s sample containers shown in Fig. 3. As shown, the sample containers have different heights and shapes.
Sarwar et al. does not teach a sample container type discrimination section obtaining information on the sample containers and discriminating the type of the sample containers.
Kojima teaches a dispensing apparatus for dispensing samples in containers that have different heights and shapes as shown in Fig. 13.
Kojima teaches an information reading device 11c that reads sample information and the type of the sample container 11 a that stores the sample from the information storage medium, and outputs them to the control unit 31. [0017]
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide Sarwar et al. with a sample container type discrimination section based on identifying containers having different heights and shapes as taught by Kojima when transferring samples from the sample containers to the reaction containers.
It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor for abnormal readings from the pressure sensor, by comparing such abnormal readings to predetermined criteria in a memory of the analyzer.
Regarding the new limitation that the determination criteria data include a pressure in the sample dispensing nozzle before the sample dispensing nozzle contacts a bottom of a respective sample container for each type of the sample containers, this reads on monitoring the pressure in the nozzle at any position above the bottom of the sample container, which includes the probe of Sarwar et al. contacting a surface of liquid in a container or the probe being at a depth of liquid in a container - other than the probe contacting the bottom of the container, whereat a pressure difference exists that is greater than before the probe enters the container from the top.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima renders all the limitations of claim 1 obvious.
Therefore, Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites a sample liquid amount calculation section calculating liquid amounts of the samples stored in the sample containers, the memory section memories plural determination criteria data for use in determination by the sample liquid amount calculation section, for each type of the sample containers, and the abnormality determination section determines, based on determination results of the sample liquid amount calculation section, whether or not an abnormality takes place in dispensing the samples.
Sarwar et al teaches the present invention relates to an automatic analyzer that includes a dispensing mechanism performing the suction of a solution such as a reagent or a specimen in a predetermined amount and delivering the solution to a reaction container. (column 1, lines 5-8)
It would have been obvious to modify Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima to use the predetermined sample amounts to determine by a sample liquid amount calculation section, for each type of the sample containers, and an abnormality determination section to determine, based on determination results of the sample liquid amount calculation section, whether or not an abnormality takes place in dispensing the samples.
Therefore, Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima renders claim 3 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites the sample container type discrimination section performs discrimination of the type of the sample containers, based on information of the sample containers which is inputted from a user interface.
Sarwar et al. teaches that types of analysis executed on each sample are input to the controller. (column 6, Lines 21-23)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima to provide for user selection of a sample that the analysis system could select from the sample container identification for purposes of being able to prioritize analysis of a sample.
Therefore, Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima renders claim 4 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites that the sample container type discrimination section discriminates whether the sample containers are sample containers for minute amount or other than those.
Both Sarwar et al. and Kojima teach larger and smaller sample containers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima with a sample container type discrimination section to determine containers having different heights are used to transfers samples to the reaction containers as note above would provide for determining different sized containers.
Therefore, Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima renders claim 6 obvious.
2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima as applied to claim 1 and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0223012 to Hibe et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites a sample container bottom contact presence/absence discrimination section discriminating whether or not a tip end of the sample dispensing nozzle contacts bottoms of the sample containers, the memory section memories plural determination criteria data for use in determination by the sample container bottom contact presence/absence discrimination section, for each type of the sample containers, and the abnormality determination section determines, based on discrimination results of the sample container bottom contact presence/absence discrimination section, whether or not an abnormality take places in dispensing the samples.
Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima does not teach a sample container bottom contact presence/absence discrimination section discriminating whether or not a tip end of the sample dispensing nozzle contacts bottoms of the sample containers.
Hibe et al. teaches that it is known that when an aspirating probe contacts the bottom of a container the negative pressure in the probe increases. [0013]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pressure sensor in Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima to monitor for pressure changes associated with the probe contacting the bottom of the sample containers as taught by Hibe et al. to determine when and if the probe contacts the bottoms of the sample containers.
Therefore, Sarwar et al, in view of Hibe et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima as applied to claim 1 and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0011887 to Spong et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the sample container type discrimination section performs discrimination of the type of the sample containers, based on photographed image information of the sample containers to be determined.
Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima teaches discrimination of the type of the sample containers, but not based on photographed image information of the sample containers to be determined.
Spong et al. teaches providing identify data on sample containers and using a camera to capture an image of the identification data. [0004], [0006]
It would have been obvious to modify Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima to include sample identification information on the sample containers that is captured by a camera (i.e., a “photographed” image) as taught by Spong et al. for purposes of identify samples in the sample containers.
Therefore, Sarwar et al, in view of Spong et al. render claim 5 obvious.
4. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima.
Sarwar et al. teaches an automatic analyzer that includes a probe 16 for aspirating samples from sample containers 10 into reaction containers and teaches a pressure sensor 26 that monitors for normal or abnormal pressure in the probe. (column 7, lines 8-15)
Sarwar et al. teaches different sized sample container that, as shown in Fig. 10, closely resemble applicant’s sample containers shown in Fig. 3. As shown, the sample containers have different heights and shapes.
Sarwar et al. does not teach a sample container type discrimination section obtaining information on the sample containers and discriminating the type of the sample containers.
Kojima teaches a dispensing apparatus for dispensing samples in containers that have different heights and shapes as shown in Fig. 13.
Kojima teaches an information reading device 11c that reads sample information and the type of the sample container 11 a that stores the sample from the information storage medium, and outputs them to the control unit 31. [0017]
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide Sarwar et al. with a sample container type discrimination section based on identifying containers having different heights and shapes as taught by Kojima when transferring samples from the sample containers to the reaction containers.
It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor for abnormal readings from the pressure sensor, by comparing such abnormal readings to predetermined criteria in a memory of the analyzer.
Regarding the new limitation that the determination criteria data include a pressure in the sample dispensing nozzle before the sample dispensing nozzle contacts a bottom of a respective sample container for each type of the sample containers, reads on monitoring the pressure in the nozzle at any position above the bottom of the sample container, which includes on the probe of Sarwar et al. contacting a surface of liquid in a container or the probe being at a depth of liquid in a container - other than the probe contacting the bottom of the container, whereat a pressure difference exists that is greater than before the probe enters the container from the top.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to monitor any pressure changes in the probe before the probe contacts the bottom of a container for purposes of monitoring contact with, or depth in, liquid in a container.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima renders all the limitations of claim 7 obvious.
Therefore, Sarwar et al. in view of Kojima renders claim 7 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection explains why the newly added amendments to claims 1 and 7 are obvious.
As noted above, the newly added limitations to claims 1 and 7 that the determination criteria data include a pressure in the sample dispensing nozzle before the sample dispensing nozzle contacts a bottom of a respective sample container for each type of the sample containers, reads on monitoring the pressure in the nozzle at any position above the bottom of the sample container, which includes on the probe of Sarwar et al. contacting a surface of liquid in a container or the probe being at a depth of liquid in a container - other than the probe contacting the bottom of the container, whereat a pressure difference exists that is greater than before the probe enters the container from the top.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to monitor any pressure changes in the probe before the probe contacts the bottom of a container for purposes of monitoring contact with, or depth in, liquid in a container.
Applicant’s arguments that Kojima uses capacitive liquid level detection are not relevant inasmuch as Kojima has been relied upon as teaching the identifying different types of sample containers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights